Yeah. I was trying to get Graham and should have picked him up when I saw those talks were going nowhere. I was going to message you when I saw he was there to tell you to pick him up, so I was at least glad to see you got him when I did not

I have some depth at WR and RB and it would solve my problem of always starting the wrong person, but I would need a top TE back for one of my RBs.
Last week I did the same thing I always do where I moved out Walford and Adams 20 minutes before the first game and lost. I would probably be safer with no depth because I obviously can't make the right roster decisions on my own

I think it can't be a condition of this trade. If next year you decide to do this, then it is OK. But the trade next year needs to make sense. In reality, we never veto anything, so it will be OK. But if next year, you decide to just cut them and not do the trade, that is your decision and cannot be a condition of this trade.
It is too close to the "rental" trades we decided could not be done in Experts. In Experts we used to allow one week trades to cover bye weeks with the assumption the players would be traded back the next week. It was decided they were not allowed or at least were to be considered 2 separate trades. So, this seems like the Dynasty version of that to me, unless others see it differently. I am fine trading back either person to Bronn next year if they are to be cut, but it needs to be for similar value (and if the player is cut, there is not a lot of value). It just has to be a separate trade not a condition of this trade.

So if they are cut before week 3 Bronn pays the penalty. What does the second part mean? That he can trade any player to you prior to week 3 to get them back and then not have to pay the penalty? I don't think that flies. I think you need to treat that as a separate trade. Agreeing to that beforehand is close to "collusion".
I processed the trade for now because I think that this is semantics and if Jace decides next year to trade back any of these players to Bronn next year for any 1 year player, that is fine, but the trade would need to make sense and should not be a condition of this trade. Or am I just over-reacting here.